IN response to your letter dated November 8, 2006 regarding the 12 Day Pre-General Report please note that MN-06 Congressional Victory Committee is an affiliated committee with Bachmann for Congress.

Please contact me with any further questions. Thank you.

That response doesn't seem to answer the FEC's complaint:

Schedule B of your report ... discloses one or more contributions which appear to exceed the limits set forth in the Act. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a) prohibits a non-multicandidate political committee and its affiliates, from making a contribution to a candidate for federal office in excess of $2,100 per election.

I don't see the committee's response addressing the FEC's issue. Of course, I have no knowledge of election law. If someone could clarify this issue, that would be great.

Comments

Two interesting questions - or more actually: What loopholes are there for "affiliated" PACs or multi-fund situations such as Michele Bachmann ran via the Keith Davis funding management cabal? Is there EVER personal liability for individuals running a fund, or is the fund, only liable? If the fund only is liable, and fined, what's the bankruptcy status if it's insolvent? Even if a bankruptcy of a candidate's fund does not result in an FEC penalty being dischargable you can't get blood from a stone. Hence, the final question, what's in the law to prevent a fined-fund from going dormant and the candidate starting up an entirely new one? Surely if there's cash in the coffers of the fund at fault FEC should have some statutory reach and powers, and in the affiliated fund transaction if both funds are liable there's two potential pockets. But the big loophole appears to be spending as much as available to get elected; then post election, bring in a virgin - i.e., form a wholly new fund and let the defunct funds face whatever. Putting in serious and real candidate liability, or Davis, Huckaby, Lisker firm liability - then it's a wholly different story. But it is the perpetual campaign finance reform story - do you really expect incumbents to hamstring their future reelection chances, and future money, and if so, why are you so naive?